Zbigniew Brzezinski, White House national security consultant in the Reagan administration, wrote during the Gulf war in 1991: “The US, that have very recently become the winners of the 45-year global cold war, have now been engaged in a regional/peripheral war. Its outcome could determine if the U.S. will be able to bear the fruit of that global victory and whether they can create a New World order...”

However, “there is nothing more difficult to manipulate, more dangerous to handle or more uncertain in its outcome than the imposition of a new order (N.Machiavelli). Thus, the war for the reapportionment and the “rearrangement” of the world was not only rekindled simultaneously with all the boasting for “that great global victory” of 1989 and the hot air about “the end of history”, but it continues to rage in various bleeding places (Palestine, Iraq, Caucasus, Andes etc.), while it lastingly takes different shapes, striking even inside the heart of the USA.

Besides, as we wrote ten years ago, concerning the dynamic of the developments in Middle East and especially the islamic phenomenon: “the architects of war, by launching the Desert Storm they cause hurricanes that will turn up in the Metropolis!”

So –after a series of military operations to gain control over the crucial regions of the Gulf and the Balkans, a series of raids and bombardments (Somalia ’92, Sudan and Afghanistan ’98) and after a swarm of covert or visible interventions for supporting their regional allies (Colombia, Ecuador, Israel, Turkey)- now the time has come for the architects of Pax Americana to taste themselves the bitter fruit of their imperial policy. The same fruit that in the meantime millions of people have swallowed terror, blood and death.

Ten years after the bombardment of Baghdad, with a thunderous barrage of airplane attacks the twin towers of World Trade Center in New York and part of the Defense Ministry (Pentagon) in Washington have collapsed, along with whatever they represented as much-praised symbols of globalized capital and imperialist force, dragging down with them the image of a supposedly invulnerable and unassailable great power. And who can blame the millions of oppressed and exploited people for their admitted or unadmitted feelings of Nemesis for this unforeseen blow that the powerful and arrogant hegemony of the world has suffered in its very heart. (The great power’s only consolation was that at least the destruction of the White House was prevented and this way a probable search for the President in the debris was avoided…)

As for the possible crackles and the wider consequences this tremendous strike will have on the political and economic system of the US and of a big part of the planet, given the recession, they are incalculable for the moment and they will be appearing as an unavoidable sequence for a long period of time –something like post-seismic vibrations. Frankly, as Herakletos said, “the thunder rules everything”, leading momentarily, suddenly and revelatory to a new state of affairs. And where the thunder strikes nothing remains the same as before…

The world’s surprise for these attacks is not because they supposedly were unprovoked, given the fact that the U.S. have practically declared war to half of the planet, at least. And of course the surprise is not due to the choice of these specific targets, as long as the Pentagon and the WTC are not kindergartens, hospitals or other charitable institutions. The surprise was because of the collapse of the illusion that the US can bombard whomever, whenever and however they want, without having to worry for retaliation inside their territory. The surprise is also due to the revealing (and spectacular because of the television) verification that even the monumental ramparts of militarism and of globalized capital can be burned down and demolished, exactly like the simple dwellings in Baghdad and Belgrade. As for the suicidal methodology of the hijackers and the lethal use of passenger airplanes as flying bombs, it seems that the utter supremacy of the USA in weaponry can eventually be outflanked and may turn against them, as long as their unarmed but sworn enemies don’t have scope for conventional war and so they resort to extreme situations, giving the ultimate meaning of the term “asymmetric war”. (And although Allah, via his “prophet”, forbids his believers to kill civilians and especially women and children, during wars, it seems that he can’t hinder them, because if he could do so he would have hindered the murder of their own women and children…)

The fact is that the completely different impact of these attacks -as much on the internal of the western societies as on those of the so-called “third” world- has revealed the abysmal hatred and the depth of the contrasts between those glutted and those starving, between the arrogant and the humbled, the conquistadors and the conquested, the lords and the servants… The “unbalanced threats” were not created in any fundamentalist Assassins’ caves; they were created by the criminal unbalance that divides the mankind.

In Manhattan, just as in any other case, the horror of war is not a cinema spectacle and it is always bringing violent death and unutterable pain. But this will not be taught to the world –to the children of Indifada and of Piazza Alimonda, to the mothers of the disappeared in Buenos Aires and to the mothers of the deformed children in Vasora, to the prisoners on death fast in Turkey and to the bombarded with pesticides peasants of Colombia- by the CNN; by those who have reduced capitalism’s atrocities, mass human sacrifices and environmental devastation, to an everyday harmless TV show, to accompany the ups and downs of the Dow Jones for the yuppies.

If there is excessive cynicism around us, this is precisely because of those power-phrenics who raise towers of wealth and war, founded on the flagrant exploitation and oppression of the mankind, even on the genocide of entire populations. And as humanity is precious for us to survive as humans in this nightmarish and murderous world of the State and Capital, there is no reason to misspend our sorrow by pointlessly including those who want, serve and enjoy this inhuman world. It’s not by accident that even the official –and lead by the warmongers – CNN’s threnody, in order to be somewhat convincing it does not refer at all to the “innocent victims” of the Pentagon (like major general Tim.J.Maude); it focuses only on those who died in the airplanes and in the WTC.

It is not important if we do not know how many and who were the really innocent people who were unjustly wasted in Hell’s Towers, together with the businessmen, the bankers and the financiers. The important thing is that there were indeed innocent people, like the workers in day labor. From this point of view their undeserved loss is one more moment of human tragedy, one more drop of blood in the ocean of blood, created by the massacre of millions of other people in Iraq, Palestine, Kurdistan, Yugoslavia, Chile, Panama, in Vietnam formerly and in Hiroshima…

An immense human tragedy that today continues in Afghanistan and that will never and nowhere stop as long as there is any system of authority of “human” on human.

Of course the USA would not give up because they lost a part of the Pentagon and two or three towers in Manhattan. As for military personnel and businessmen, they have plenty more. So, after surviving the shock and panic, the Texan cow boy who is appointed as president of the USA, replacing his saxophonist forerunner, appeared proud again (despite the crumple) and declared the “war against terrorism”, also defining that it will endure more than a decade. Now, if this assignee of the american multinationals really meant what he said, first he should commit suicide, in order to set an example as he is the chief-terrorist. Secondly, the USA should resolve by themselves and the elite of the country should self-exterminate. But alas! He meant differently and he immediately made that clear, with his eloquent and beyond any misinterpretation statement, regarding the wide spectrum of this war’s targets: “Everyone who is not with us is against us”.

But this is not about declaring a really new war and even more it is not about a defensive war. The strikes of September 11^th in the USA may have been a surprise and rather unexpected regarding their extent and the way in which they were made, in the heart of the empire, but (just like former strikes, against USA military bases in S. Arabia, against their embassies in Dar er Salam or against USS Cole in Aden) they seem to stem from that specific geopolitical and cultural area, the Middle East, where the USA and their allies are waging a continuous and manifold war all the last decade, for their political-military and economic domination. These strikes didn't come from nowhere to force the raise of the "peaceful" transatlantic giant. On the contrary, it looks like the retribution for the imperialist war conducted by the USA in the Middle East. A war which was very elegantly described by former USA energy minister T. Sleshinger, during the Summit of the International Energy Service in September of 1992 in Madrid, like this:

"What the american people have figured about the Gulf war is that it is easier to kick in the ass these Middle East niggers, than making sacrifices in order to reduce your dependence on imported oil"…

Thereby, it's not the S11 attacks that lead to the war; the attacks resulted from the war and they transferred it, in the most dramatic and revelatory way, in the place where it has began, inside the political-military and economic centers of the US. Accordingly, the declaration of "war against terrorism" (where "terrorist" is whoever resists the USA) does not indicate at all a new war in the name of "democracy" and "justice". It only suggests the furious disposal of the wounded empire to intensify and extend the war that is already carrying out for consolidating its global reign.

Targets of this war are not only the real or possible perpetrators of the recent attacks (like bin Laden), but all those peoples, movements, groups and individuals who strive against the empire -no matter where they come from and what means they use to resist. Whoever is not with the USA is against them, and everyone who is against them will be considered as terrorist and is or will be a target of the "war against terrorism". The martial doctrine of the emerging imperial rule does not leave space for "innocent", "unsuspecting" and "neutral" positions…

 We think it's made evident by the new data and the new development of the imperialist war after the S11 attacks, that in this war's new phase, named "war against terrorism", the enemy is not exactly allocated, and nor is the type and the theater of operations. It is confessed by the most official personalities of the empire that "terrorist" (meaning everyone who is not with them) may be anyone and anywhere, and that "terrorists" should be chased with any means, visible or invisible...

The war didn't start with the sanguinary American and English strikes against Afghanistan, it is not confined there and it definitely isn't going to stop there. The new globalized environment, as it emerged the last decade, corresponds with a new form of world war, for the reservation and the promotion of global Domination, against any form of resistance that appears in any place on earth.

"War against terrorism" has started with the attack inside the western societies, first in the USA and secondly in E.U., through a series of procedures for social “recruitmen” and state totalitarianism, through the upgrading of the secret services’ role and intensification of propaganda. And of course we don’t have to do with “emergency” measures because of the S11 attacks; we ’re actually dealing with the acceleration of some -already programmed- procedures of social control and repression aiming at confronting the “internal enemy”. A characteristic example is the british terror law which was in effect before S11 and defines as “terrorism” anything that turns against the status quo. This law is today promoted as the nucleus for the euro-terror-law which is being prepared.

Together with the promotion of state totalitarianism and the emerging of the western terror-phobic societies for the confrontation of terrorism from within and from without, we saw the beginning of the empire’s military preparation and diplomatic frenzy, in order to confront the strategic challenge it has received and in order to re-confirm its rule. And that is because when the strikes of September 11^th (if they really came from islamists) put in sight the prestige and vigour of the empire through intending to cause the maximum possible cracks and derangment to its political-economic system, this means that they’re generally aiming at causing ruptures and subversions to its net of domination on the geopolitical and cultural area of Islam, where the main energy sources of the empire are located.

As our comrade Xenofon Anastasiou wrote in ’97, in his incomplete brochure “The New Data of Oil Geostrategy”:

“Even if in the 90’s the North-Americans maintain military bases and strong military forces in the arabic Gulf countries (Kuwait, S. Arabia, Bahrein) -something that would be unbelievable in the 70’s, while in the 80’s, despite its intense and continuous efforts, the Reagan addministration had failed to succeed- it is not at all certain that this military presence automatically indicates a secure stability in the region.”

The american military presence in Arabia after the ’91 Gulf War strained the ruptures within the arabic peoples and the local elites; the rapid growth of radical islamism as an opponent awe against the USA and the west-friendly regimes of the area, became the ultimate threat for the precarious stability during the ’90s.

Consequently, the military operation in Afghanistan does not simply aim at the examplary punishment of the clandestine pan-islamic “brotherhoods”, like Al Qa’eda, who have been charged for the attacks of September 11^th; nor at just overthrowing the Taliban regime which offers them shelter. When they attmpt to crush the uncontrolled islamists based in Afghanistan and replace the Taliban regime with another one which will be equally tyrannical but more cooperating and depended, the USA have in view more objects than just to take revenge - and of course in no case do they have in mind the liberation of the afghan people.

In principle, by disorganizing these clandestine brotherhoods they expect to neutralize or at least shrink their growing dynamic within the Middle East muslim societies, so that the american-friendly regimes maintain stability. And therefore in order for the US to fully retake the lead for imposing in the region changes (that are necessary after S11), without having also to deal with the dangerous presence and influence of uncontrolled factors. From this point of view, the outcome of the whole operation in Afghanistan will have a great effect in the Middle East developments; and when it will be considered finished there will be new cleansing operations in other regions, like, propably, in Sudan, Somalia, Yemen or the Bhekaa Valley in Lebanon.

But through this operation, the USA, apart from protecting their permanent vital interests in the Middle East, they also aim at taking control of the critical geopolitical area of Afghanistan, which connects the shores of the Indian Ocean with Central Asia, where there are important oil and gas deposits. These deposits, despite being bonded in advance by mostly american investing programs, they remain substantially un-exploited because of the antagonism between Russia and the USA in Central Asia, and due to the lack of secure ways through to carry them from the enclosed region to the west (Caucasus) or south (Iran, Afghanistan).

We should note that, at least in four of the five states of Central Asia (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tatzikistan and Kirgistan), that have resultet from the dissolution of the Soviet Union in an area which stretches from Caspian Sea to the borders of China, the populations are muslim and there is great influence of fundamentalism. In some particular cases there have been armed islamist rebellions that were restrained by russian troops.

Without expanding more on the issue, we think it is obvioius the reason why this operation the USA are carrying out in Afghanistan, with the assistance of their oil-consumers western-european allies and their oil-producers Middle East allies, has moreover the consent and support of other powers in the region of Afghanistan, like Russia, China and India. These three periphery powers of the global domination system have already serious problems with their muslim populations and the threat of radical islamism inside and in their perimeter: Russia in Chechnya and C. Asia, India in Kasmir, China in the province of San Kiang or Eastern Turkestan. As for the other two powers in the surroundings of Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan, things are even more complicated: the shi’ite regime of Iran which resulted from the islamic revolution of 1979 is equally antagonistic to the american rule over the region and to the sunni Talibal regime. On the contrary, the islamic military regime of Pakistan is equally serviceable to the Taliban regime -whom it has helped to seize power- and to the USA demands, more and more leaning towards the latter, reminding the proverb “give bread to the bandit and report to the gendarme”...

 The opposite (geopolitical, economic, cultural and social) interests that are imminently jeopardized in the wider arab-muslim area are so many, and the eventual aftermath of the S11 strikes is so incalculable (it might be a generalized de-stabilization and an uncontrolled explosion of all the contrasts simmering in the area), that it is easy for someone to understand the global -and so heterogeneous- allience the USA have created around them, as much as the reasons of the Crusade they have launched in order to anticipate and destroy the unacountable islamic organizations that are placed and take refuge in the strategic and hard to approach Afghanistan. In the same country where the islamists had formerly vanquished the Red Army, with the support of the USA who was back then calling them “freedom fighters”...

In order to explain what has changed and the former tactical allies of the USA have now become their strategical rivals, we should first have in mind that in the meantime the Soviet Union ceased to exist... We should also point out that the mujahedins didn’t fight the Red Army so as to end up one day accepting the american troops as “protection” in Arabia, and just watching Jerusalem being proclaimed as “eternal capital” of Israel... Especially when the traditional “holy lands” of Islam intersect on the one hand with the strategic ways of access to the greater oil deposits in the world and on the other hand with the blind alleys where the peoples of the region are trapped...

If we make a reference in history we will say that today is not the first time that the West is appearing on terms of a “crusade” in the arab-muslim area, trigering off the appearance of jihad. And it isn’t even necessary for us to run back to the Middle Ages’ crusades or the Catholic “reconquista” of Iberia which was completed in 1492, exterminating muslims up to the last one.

A brief retrospection to the period of time between the beginning of the 19^th century and the beginning of the 20^th is extremely revealing. It is the time where an unprecedented imperialist attack broke out by the european states towards Africa and Asia, for conquering new colonial lands, acquiring raw materials for Europe’s industrialization and creating new markets for its products. The inner-european antagonism was defused by being exported to the other continents and by their subsequent conquest in the name of “christianization, civilization and trade”. And indeed this antagonism became so intense that finaly lead to world war 1 and the massacre of millions of proletarians.

In the meantime though, throughout this period, islamism consisted the focal point of reference for the anti-collonialist resistance and the main deterrent factor against the european advance, in an area extended from west Africa to the big islands of southeast Asia.

The most indicant examples are, first, the Abd Al Kadir war against the conquest of North Africa, which began by the French in Algeria in 1830 and, then, the “holy wars” of Ahmadu Shefu and Shamori, against the French advance in West Africa, started in 1870 and completed in 1905.

Even more indicant is the islamist Mahdi’s anti-colonialist revolt in east Africa, in the decade of 1880, which beated general Gordon’s anglo-egyptian army and occupied Hartum. With Califa being at the head, the mahdists continued their resistance until 1898, when they were slaughtered by the British, counting 120.000 dead.

More south, in Somalia there was strong resistance under Sayed, the “mad mullah”, which lasted from 1891 until 1929 against the British and the Italian. In the same time, in Libya, the risistance of the Senousi islamic brotherhood against the italian conquest lasted from 1911 to 1931. In Marocco, Abd el Krim and his Berbers revolt and fight in Rif against the French and the Spanish. (1921-1926).

Advancing over Caucasia, the Russians were faced with the desperate resistance of Shamil, called “leader of the righteous and destroyer of the infidels” (1834-1859). They also faced stout resistance in conquering Central Asia, where in 1916 there was a big revolt by the muslim peoples.

In the Indonesian Shoumatra island, the Duthch colonialists were faced with Jihad by the muslims of Atseh (1881-1908). Meanwhile the Northamericans who occupied Philippines in 1898 were met with the Moros muslims’ resistance which lasted until 1913, in Mandinao island.

A case of successful resistance was the one offered by the muslim tribes in Afghanistan, who kept their independence from the British empire, after defeating the english troops three times (1838-42, 1878-80 and 1919) in their inaccessible mountains. But in the other cases as well, the superior firepower of the western colonialists may had determined the final result of the conflict, however never did the conquest that followed became accepted.

Refering to history again, we should underline the fact that in the postwar period, in the times of neo-colonialism, pan-arabic nationalism did not have a religious content. Islamism had very limitted political influence and its various aspects in the arab-muslim world did not represent something more than the suspicion and hostility towards anything that threatened the structures and institutions of the tradional society. This last point was mainly concerning the innovations disputed or brought by the Left and the nationalists in the arab-muslim world.

So it is not strange that imperialist West supported on occasion the islamist reaction and especially the traditional islamic regimes, in order to have a local “counter-weight” against anything “progressive” opposing to its interests in the region. It is very characteristic the western support to theocratic Saudi monarchy, which was imposed at almost the entire arab peninsula (Jazeera) through its fundamentalist dogma, wahhabi. There is also the support of the Gulf Emirates and of the Sultanate of Omman (british possessions until 1971), that continue to exist only to secure a cheap and unhindered oil supply to the West.

Coming closer to our days, the West (and particularly the Wild West, the USA) would find out that it was not only the national liberation, the nationalist and the left movements that threatened its interests in the arab-muslim world. The failures, the weakness and the compromises of nationalists towards the West (like the Palestinian affair), as well as the foreign interventions in the region and the violent westernization, bringing more deep social-economic and cultural contrasts because of the old agrarian societies’ disintegration, the immigration towards the cities and the abysmal gab between reachness and poverty, all these together have increased islamism’s social influence, strengthened its lines and strongly radicalized some of its expressions.

This way, the last two decades of the 20^th century were marked by the explosive emergence of islamism as a dominant factor in the arab-muslim world’s developments. Seeking for the top events that signify this emergence, we first run back to late 70’s and early 80’s, where the Islamic Revolution raked the Shah’s “White Revolution” in Iran, the Soviets invade Afghanistan and fight with the mujahedins, the president of Egypt, Sadad makes compromise with Israel and the islamists appear dynamically and murder him. At the end of the 80’s and the beginning of the 90’s the mujahedins win in Afghanistan and the Soviet Union collapses, the american troops establish themselves in Saudi Arabia and the iraqui people suffers another terrifying devastation, while Indifada dies down and the Palestinians are draged into a compromise with Israel. Coming to our days and the beginning of the new century, the american forces remain in Saudi Arabia as “protection”, the destruction of the iraqui people goes on undiminished, while the USA suffer the terrifying strikes of September 11 and declare the beginning of a new Crusade.

(...)
[Note: This part of the text continues with a long reference in historical events that marked the Moddle East the last decades, parts that are not translated here.]

The greek state if looked up in a map may seem like a small province in the frontier of the empire, yet it has its own national capital of political-economic power and also huge interests inside the empire. Besides, it’s not by accident in the 24^th place in the world scale of the richest countries. As a full member of the European Union, the greek state is promoted with a good position in the netting of domination that covers the globe and it actively participates in the world’s exploitation, keeping for itself a good share of the prize, being specialist in the Balkans and the Middle East area. As an old apprentice of the USA (since the civil war) and as a full member of NATO -which notably in 1999 revised its defensive doctrine and undertook the role of global military police-, the greek state participated with a view to profit in the emprialist operations in the Gulf, Somalia and the Balkans and maintains NATO-american military bases in its territory. Consequently there is no question about its position on the “war against terrorism” that the empire declared in September 11^th.

Furthermore, any reference to possible internal or external “unbalanced threats” in view to the first olympic games of the 21^st century -which had a rather ill-omened beginning in Manhattan- does not leave room for differentiations by the greek state towards the strict “anti-terrorist” imperial commands. We should add the upgrading of the special repressive role of Greece (as a frontier of the empire) concerning the effective confrontation of the so-called “illegal immigration”, which the staffs of domination classify among the “unbalanced threats”. Last, we have to mention the military upgrading through the formation of a new mercenary professional army.

For the moment, the specific role of the greek state in the geeral recruitment for “war against terrorism” is:

- the function of the greek-american charitable institutions (military bases) in Souda and Aktio, which are of vital importance,
- the offer of harbour facilities and air-corridors for the american killers to pass eastwards,
- the participation of greek crews in NATO’s airplanes AWACS that are defending the USA air space(!)

and also

- the promotion of euro-terror-law
- the relentless pursuit of domestic and foreign suspects for “terrorism” and
- the drastic repulsion of the waves of desparate refugees who arrive from East.

 There is a statement made by the greek foreign minister. G. Papandreou before his viting Colin Powel in Washington and which is revealing for the special mission the greek state has inside the North Atlantic Alliance: “The role of Greece in the Middle East is equal to its role in the Balkans”...

And for the truth of the facts, apart his gentle offer of (another) greek military troop to be used in the future wherever it is needed, he also offered his valuable service as an advanced diplomatic guardhouse and negotiator for the USA. For this reason G. Papandreou after visiting Washington he travelled to Damaskus in Syria, to fathom the possibilities of a wider consent in the “war against terrorism”. The talks were kept secret, but a phrase of Powel, “we can not accept the syrian position that there is “good” and “bad” terrorism, terrorism is one...” must be interpretated as a US demand for the syrian part to withdraw its support towards the Palestinian and Lebanon’s organizations, which are consired as “terrorist” by the USA... The next mission of G. Papandreou seems to be related, as this time it concerns Iran, which also supports shi’ite Lebanon organizations that are acting against Israel, dashing from Bhekaa Valley.

In the meantime, Papandreou will also go to Pakistan, to offer an amount of money for “humanitarian” aid to the Afghan refugees (in order to stop them from coming to the West...). Besides, the hypocricy for the tragedy of the refugees is unlimited: the greek borders are as close to refugees as the Taliban borders in Afghanistan and Mousaraf’s in Pakistan. Hundreds of refugees are drowned in the Aegean sea trying to pass to Greece. It is indicating that from the thousands of Afghans who came and asked for asylum in Greece, only ten received it! The rest are either deported or waiting to be deported to nowhere...

In February of 1991, in front of the war launched in the Gulf for the “New Wold Order” enforcement, we wrote:

In that sense, NO MATTER WHERE IT BREAKS OUT, IT IS OUR WAR TOO. Our duty is to comprehend the precise extent of the oppositions that are expressed, to push them forward in a revolutionary perspective and to undermine any position which reinforces the imperialist side, whithout submitting to its ideological pressure and propaganda... Last, although we must appraise and strengthen the potentiality of a possible massive peace movement to obstruct the imperialist aggressiveness, we don’t actually need “any” peace, as long as this is a compromise with Domination. On the contrary, what we need is a ceaseless war, in every front of the imperialist capitalist restructuring...” (Ora Nihil, no 2)

 Today, ten years later and after what happened in the meantime since that analysis about the character, the objectives and the eventual targets of the imperialist war, we have every reason to return to these positions of ours; especially now, in front of this war’s new and revealing phase, named “war against terrorism”, which will be lasting and global, as it was officialy stated. It is not a declaration of a new war. It is the intensification and revelation of the war that is virtually waging for a long time, all along the borders who separate the dominators from the dominated. As for us, the ceaseless war we propose against Domination has a social and class content, and as such it defines with explicitness the multitude of its enemies, as much as the necessity of their final destruction, for the individual and social liberation of the people.

We will point out though that our participation in the everyday social and class struggle is not but a particular historic route within an also particular area of Domination, which is the West. Therefore we should not disregard the fact that our knowledge and experiaces are inevitably partial, even in this struggle, as we are restricted in the historicity of the particular conditions of inequality, exploitation, oppression and control that exist in this specific area, the internal of european metropoles. But the historicity that determines us and from which we draw our references, is not the one that marks every place of the planet, as long as neither the conditions of exploitation and oppression appear with the exact same way everywhere, nor the presuppositions, the parameters, the references and the forms of resistance are the same.

“Europe” (with the broad and not the geographical meaning of that term) may give the impression that is the center of the world, to the extent it has conquered it, but obviously it is not the whole world. And the fact alone that from our side, as anarchists, at least in the way we ‘ve known anarchy the last two centuries in “Europe”, we never really got roots outside of it, should make us more thoughtful and careful about how reliable and uninfluenced (from the luxury of the “european” position) can be the aphorisms we make about what is truly happening and what is each time being expressed in societies different and unfamiliar to the western ones.

To take refuge in ideology and slogans, and use them as tools to interpret everything that takes place on earth, does not exactly lighten anything -The same way that in the past nothing was offered by some ideological figures facing the power and the state as if they were timeless and invariable reflections in the domain of ideas and not as material relations, subjected to continuous transformations in the space and time of history.

Concerning the present circumstances that presage a long period of “war against terrorism” (in the way this term is each time defined by the bosses of the world), both for the internal of the empire and for its perimeter, we don’t have, as we never had during all this decade, any dilemma regarding our position against the war.

In principle, given the place where we live and what is generally pursued, “neutrality” and the policy of keeping “equal distances” in the “war against terrorism” is an illusion and leads to an unreal ideological-political anachoreticism, if not to an indirect and unintentional support of the entire Northatlantic alliance’s complex.

On the other hand, to refuse this absurd “neutrality”, it certainly doesn’t mean a “conventional” alien identification with any regime, organization or person that appears each time by the official propaganda as the target of the war.

It means that we have already chosen our own side, long before September 11^th; the side of the antiauthoritarian social and class struggle, which may be spread and multiform but has its peaks and priorities, in proportion to the space and the time it arises, and in relevance with the analysis of the general contrasts expressed around us and of what is every time jeopardized.

Therefore, our position against this war, either as a crusade eastwards or as global “war against terrorism”, is exactly the same position we had in ’91 and in ’99 (with the fiery night of 19^th November being the zenith): we will either be the internal enemy inside the capitalist metropoles or nothing.

 September 11^th inevitably signified a gigantic turning point in the so far “linear” evolution of the big anticapitalist tide that was militantly expressed in dozens of places of the world, like Seattle, Prague and Genoa. Besides, the “anti-globalization movement”’s self-styled leadership, which was established as a kind of reformist international in Porto Alegre, already had many problems because of their obvious failure to manipulate it. And in order to justify their political defeat and the fact that they were surpassed by the generalized clashes in Genoa, they resorted to the well-known misery of slandering anarchists and talking about provocators. (anyway, we had made that clear from before: “Genoa will not be Porto Alegre”! Anarchist Bulletin no11, July ’01).

And suddenly, apart from the rivalry between the insurrectional and the reformist tendencies, the anticapitalist tide was additionaly found among the clouds of dust and confusion left behind by the collapse of the WTC; it was found in the crossfire of “war against terrorism” and in front of an intensification of repression in the western societies.

We want to emphasize that last point, exactly because the State, the big absent in all the profound analyses of the reformists who were intentionally restricting the issue on the economic dimenshion of globalization only, is now dynamically “re-appearing”; of course, the “anti-terrorist” war is not going to be carried out by the forces of the market, but instead, by the visible and invisible forces of the State.

In the meantime, the left “leadership” of the effebled by the developments “anti-globalization movement”, was moved in the new field and now reoraginizing, transforming it to an “anti-war movement”, so that they won’t be left behind. From our side, we say that, the same way with globalization, this new field of struggle will also be more wide and rough than what the reformist advocates of class reconciliation want to present. The war is already waging here and the real issue today is not restricted to just protesting against the sufferings caused by the war in Afghanistan in order to achieve the appeasement the staffs who carry it out . The same way that yesterday, in Genoa, the matter was not limitted to protesting for the sufferings caused by globalization in a way that would aim at “humanizing” capitalism...

The real issue was and remains the passage from protest to social and class revolt.